| Our Budget is a Moral Document, It Reflects Our Priorities |
| The governor’s proposed budget changes showed little correlation to what various departments claimed they did or did not need to perform their services on behalf of Missourians.
The governor has proposed a cut of $68 million from Higher Education on top of the 9 percent cut that was put into place last year. As he travels the state touting his tax break proposals, he is also recommending the state borrow $250 million to repay hard working Missourians their tax refund checks. The governor’s plans are contradictory and unworkable.
Tax cuts that were passed a few years back have predictably lowered revenue. Couple that move with the federal tax cuts that are estimated to cost the state close to $60 million per year, and the situation for those causes you may care about are in funding jeopardy.
Maybe you support funding for Higher or K-12 education. Perhaps you want to see early childhood education in our low performing schools, and childcare subsidies for low income families whose parents want to work. Maybe you believe seniors and people with disabilities should be able to receive in home healthcare services to keep them living at home rather than being sent to nursing homes. Maybe you believe seniors should have help with rising prescription drug costs. Maybe you believe that even though they represent the highest category of state health care needs, that children should have access to health care when they get sick. Maybe you want to see economic development growth including good paying jobs for hardworking people, housing for low income families, and the re-building of our roads and bridges.
Whatever your priorities, it would be hard to believe that we can continue to cut our way to prosperity.
The governor’s job is to recommend a budget, but it is our responsibility as legislators to draft and pass a budget that is fiscally responsible and reflects our priorities as a state. I am committed to working with my fellow senators to find better solutions to our budget issues which will efficiently balance the needs of the people of Missouri. |
|
| Pitting Seniors Against Seniors – Senate Bill 567 |
| Last year, the governor vetoed bi-partisan legislation that restored in-home care for our seniors and those with disabilities without harming other seniors who live on their own and participate in Missouri’s Circuit Breaker tax credit program. Now, the legislature is once again trying to find a solution to help our Missourians in need.
Senate Bill 567 is, in its current form, an unacceptable option that attempts to fund the Missouri Senior Services Protection Fund (in-home care) by taking funds from the Senior Citizens Property Tax Credit Fund. For the health and well-being of those seniors and people with disabilities who need in-home care as opposed to the next and more expensive alternative of nursing home care, we must find a budgetary solution that does not shift the burden of funding from one vulnerable group to another.
Implementation of the legislation as it stands will take away an annually-needed repayment of a portion of property taxes to 66,000 low income senior home owners and 40,000 low income senior renters throughout Missouri to fund others’ in-home care needs. This legislation pits one group of vulnerable seniors against another group of equally vulnerable seniors. I am hopeful we can find a better alternative as we work our way through the budget. |
|
SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(Food Stamps)- Senate Bill 561 |
| The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has had a monumental impact on reducing hunger in America. The program, which replaced the traditional ‘food stamp’ system has improved nutrition for families living in poverty while also boosting the local economy. An average of $90 million is spent each month at grocery stores and other outlets that participate in the SNAP program and an estimated $1.70 in economic activity occurs for every $1 spent by the government. The return on our investment in this program extends far beyond stimulating economic activity in local communities across Missouri. At least 13 percent of Missourians rely on the SNAP program to supplement their daily food needs.
Poverty is a complex issue and it is unreasonable to simply make assumptions about people who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Senate Bill 561, which has been debated on the floor of the Missouri Senate, would remove assistance from individuals who are behind on child support payments or do not comply with new, more stringent work requirements laid out in the bill.
These measures are problematic because they assume that individuals in these situations are choosing to be unemployed or to fall behind on their required child support payments. While in some cases this might be true, the vast majority of Missourians who need SNAP are hard-working, honest people who are simply trying to provide for their families. Often these individuals struggle with finding transportation, especially in rural areas, or they have responsibilities to care for family members who cannot live independently. Should these Missourians be punished for circumstances which may simply be out of their control? Senate Bill 561 is based on assumptions that would negatively impact thousands of Missourians.
Interestingly, SNAP is a federal program, and is 100 percent funded through federal dollars. In order to implement Missouri’s more stringent work requirements and limit families’ access to the program, it will cost the state approximately $200,000 per year. To me, it seems an expensive way to take away the supplement of $1.30 per meal per family member. We want children to go to school healthy, fed and ready to learn. We want the same for their parents who need to work, or go to school, or take care of a family member as well as themselves. It is short sighted to think that long-term denial of help through a supplement to their food budget will result in a positive outcome for a parent. |
|
 |
Kay Drey, environmental activist, is recognized for her decades of work by
Just Moms StL Karen Nickel, Dawn Chapman and Harvey Ferdman of CAG.
|
|
|
